Is Mobile VoIP More Reliable than Mobile Service Provider Voice?

Most observers would agree that dropped calls are a driver of customer churn. The perhaps-unknown question is whether mobile VoIP offered by over-the-top providers is more reliable than carrier-provided voice. 


Ask yourself whether you ever have seen a study comparing mobile VoIP dropped call rates to mobile carrier voice dropped call rates. It's difficult to impossible. 


Some 39 percent of  mobile users surveyed on behalf of Rebtel experienced more than five dropped calls per month. Perhaps the implication is that over-the-top mobile VoIP can be as reliable, if not more reliable, than carrier-supplied voice. But it is hard to test the assertion. 


Do you believe that mobile over-the-top VoIP will lead to fewer dropped calls than a mobile service provider's own voice service? 


The general rule of thumb is that over-the-top VoIP, in general, is less reliable than landline voice, but good enough to match mobile call quality and reliability. One might argue that service provider or enterprise IP telephony are as reliable as landline voice, though even that claim is hard to test. 


The study also showed that having a clear call connection is very important to 89 percent of respondents, with 84 percent of those claiming they are at least somewhat likely to switch smart phones as a result of poor quality. 


About 78 percent said they would be likely to switch carriers due to poor network performance, according to Rebtel.  


Dropped calls raise the likelihood of customer churn. What is difficult to determine is whether mobile VoIP, over the top, actually provides reliability that is better than what most consumers experience with mobile voice. Try to find any studies on that particular subject. It is virtually impossible. 

20% of Americans, 34% of Smart Phone Owners Purchased Using a Mobile Phone in 2011

A new survey conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of Placecast claims that 20 percent of adult mobile phone owners in the U.S. made an online purchase with their phone last year. 


Those with smartphones were more likely to make purchases on their phones. 


Thirty-four percent of smart phone owners made a purchase on their phone last year, compared to 11 percent of those with feature phones. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents to the study  said that making a purchase on their mobile phone was at least somewhat important to them.

Overall interest in using phones for purchases has grown by eight percentage points in the past two years, with 38 percent of all mobile phone owners saying it is at least somewhat important. 

Some 59 percent of smart phone owners surveyed say it is at least somewhat important to be able to make a purchase on their device.

U.S. TV Viewers Using More Screens

The average American watches nearly five hours of video each day, 98 percent of which they watch on a traditional TV set, according to Nielsen. 


After several years of consistent year-over-year growth, traditional TV viewing declined one half of one percent or roughly 46 minutes per month. Nielsen suggests that dip could be explained by any number of drivers other than a shift in viewing habits. 


As more homes adopt DVRs and move to greater use of  time-shifted viewing, time-shifted TV growth has offset the bulk of live TV declines. Other potential factors include time spent using game consoles, tablets and other emerging devices, or even short-term weather, Nielsen says. 


Still, in the fall of 2011 there was a slight decline in the number of TV homes in the U.S. market. This shift is prompting an important conversation around the definition of a “TV household” and a “TV viewer,” as some homes not using "TV" might be watching video on tablets, PCs and smart phones. 



Some 33.5 million mobile phone owners now watch video on their phones—an increase of 35.7 percent year over year. 

Greater Reliance on Wholesale in Telecom Future?

It seems likely that most tier-one service providers, especially in the mobile end of the business, will be relying on more "wholesale" services in the future. To some extent, this already is the case, as when a facilities-based service provider leases capacity and features to a mobile virtual network operator. 


Likewise, enterprise customers have for many decades created their own voice services using their own phone systems, while buying bulk access from service providers only to carry and terminate those derived services. 


Telecom service providers likewise have sold bulk capacity and features to third parties that create enterprise services for retail sale. 


But there now is much talk of ways service providers can increase the volume of services and access sold to third party business partners. Content delivery networks provide one example. Cloud computing services provide other examples. 


But sale of network features and "big data" features likely will be more important as well. The general notion is that application providers could be encouraged to purchase network functions or features in a bulk or wholesale capacity, to enhance or create new application experiences. Advertising or content firms are said to be likely buyers. 


There might be quite a lot more of that sort of activity in the future, representing a shift to more business-to-business sales than traditional business-to-end-user sales. 


Wholesale strategies could become more radical. A few service providers might opt to become wholesale-only capacity providers, though that is likely to remain a fairly unusual strategy for any tier-one service provider. 


But some believe the agency agreements between Verizon and Comcast, Time Warner Telecom and Cox Communications, allowing the cable companies to sell Verizon products, and Verizon to sell cable products, could lead the cable operators to become wholesale providers to Verizon, while Verizon becomes a wholesale supplier to the cable firms. 

Will Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon or Microsoft Become Mobile Service Providers?

Apple will provide wireless service directly to its iPad and iPhone customers, argues consultant Whitey Bluestein. In his hypothetical scenario, Apple first will sell data packages bundled with iPads. Then it will sell data and international roaming plans to iPhone customers through the iTunes Store, Bluestein argues. 


Over time, Apple will strike wholesale deals with several mobile operators so that Apple can provide wireless service directly to its customers, as Apple Mobile, Bluestein predicts. As “crazy” as that might sound, it might be a fairly common tack taken by any number of device, service or application providers, eventually. 


In fact, it fits well with the general thinking that, over time, mobile and fixed network service providers will increasingly want to sell services to third-party business partners as well as end users.


Other potential moves by a number of leading application or software providers show the ways business advantage is shifting in the mobility business. 


Microsoft's recent investment in the new company that will own the Nook tablet and content business shows the growing importance content, advertising and commerce operations are assuming for device and application suppliers, for example. 

Some believe the "Four Horsemen" of the Internet include Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon. Others might say the list actually is "Five Horsemen" and include Microsoft. Either way, the notion is that  handful of firms have the ability, at least in principle, to create and own a complete and walled-off ecosystem in which consumers use a single company’s hardware, operating system and storefront to search online, buy apps and purchase digital media and  physical products. 

What remains less clear is the importance of bundling "access" with those other device, content, commerce and advertising capabilities, though. In principle, the separation of applications from access is quite helpful for any app provider. 

On the other hand, are there ways app providers can create a better end user experience by bundling apps, devices and connectivity? 

That remains less clear. But one approach that might have clear advantages is the ability to create mobile access services that are optimized for media consumption. In other words, the aim might be to optimize the streaming media and gaming experience, not provide a "better" voice or messaging experience. 

That could take the form of a branded content delivery service distinct from general-purpose Internet apps, voice or messaging services. What might be bundled, in other words, is a branded experience enhanced by CDN capabilities. In each ecosystem, content delivered as part of a content app or service might essentially be a "private network" experience taking advantage of available optimization techniques. 

Think of a content virtual private network and you get the idea. That sort of optimized access might make more sense than any of the leading ecosystem providers becoming actual general-purpose mobile service providers. 

Mobile Commerce and Shopping Behavior Quite Common

According to a survey conducted by Nielsen, 79 percent of U.S. smart phone and tablet owners have used their mobile devices for shopping-related activities. 

Smart phones are used more often than tablets for activities on-the-go, as you would expect. By some studies, up to 95 percent of tablet usage occurs indoors, rather than in a mobile context.

About 73 percent of respondents polled by Nielsen used their smart phone to locate a store, compared to about 42 percent using a tablet to search for a store.

Some 42 percent of respondents used a mobile device to create a shopping list while shopping. About 16 percent of tablet users reported they did so.

Some 36 percent of respondents said they redeemed a mobile coupon on their smart phone, compared to  11 percent of  tablet owners.   

Some 42 percent of tablet owners have “used their device to purchase an item,” compared to 29 percent of smart phone owners.

Both smart phones and tablets have been used to “research an item before purchase.” About 66 percent of tablet owners and 57 percent of smart phone owners reported doing so.

Some 27 percent of smart phone owners and 28 percent of tablet owners say they have used their devices to make a payment. 

Apple, Google, Amazon Microsoft: Who Wins the Ecosystem War?

Microsoft's recent investment in the new company that will own the Nook tablet and content business illustrates a couple of important strategic shifts now happening in the mobile device and application markets. The biggest shift is the growing importance content, advertising and commerce operations are assuming for device and application suppliers. 


Among the secondary issues is a new take on "open" versus "closed" approaches to software development have been a live issue for decades. These days, with the emergence of content and commerce as key elements of device and application strategy, the questions are taking new shape. 


Some believe the "Four Horsemen" of the Internet include Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon. Others might say the list actually is "Five Horsemen" and include Microsoft. Either way, the notion is that  handful of firms have the ability, at least in principle, to create and own a complete and walled-off ecosystem in which consumers use a single company’s hardware, operating system and storefront to search online, buy apps and purchase digital media and  physical products. 


If that proves to be true then a couple of predictions are easy to make. Facebook and Amazon will produce their own smart phones. Facebook might also have to produce a tablet. Apple will have to create a mobile payment service, as will Microsoft. 


Google and Facebook will have to get more share of the e-commerce and mobile commerce transactions, and all will deepen the activities they now already support around mobile advertising, promotion and loyalty. 


Last week, yet another rumor surfaced that Facebook is getting closer to releasing its own branded smartphone, an obvious attempt at owning a stack component (hardware) that’s currently missing from its line-up, Wired reports. Rumors about an Amazon smart phone have circulated for a couple of years, on and off, as well. 


“A smartphone would be a logical next step for Amazon,” ABI Research Analyst Aapo Markkanen says. 


Either of those moves, plus an eventual move to create a Facebook tablet, illustrate the changing role of devices and connectivity in the mobile space. Traditionally, mobile phones simply were devices carriers had to provide to sell voice and messaging services. 


These days, matters are more complex. In addition to communications, hot consumer devices frequently are used for content consumption. That means smart phones are more important to application providers as platforms for selling content and advertising. 


Everyone expects a mobile device to handle voice and texting. Beyond that, more users expect the ability to consume content and conduct transactions. That changes the strategic importance of being a device manufacturer. 


For mobile service providers, phones have been a sort of prop to produce revenue indirectly, in the form of service subscriptions. But that also now is increasingly true for application providers. 


For Apple, which merchandises all sorts of content to sell devices, the tight bundling of content and commerce is a major reason it can sell so many devices. That also is true for some other mobile device manufacturers. But not for all. 


For Google and Amazon, devices are a way to sell more advertising, content and merchandise. Microsoft has a slightly different take, as it always has preferred to sell operating systems to partners who make phones. But Microsoft has to succeed in mobile operating systems to profit from the device ecosystem that supports the advertising, commerce and content businesses. 


Such thinking is not terribly new. Consumer electronics manufacturers have for decades understood that content was important for the devices business. Sony is probably the best example of that. Apple arguably was the first consumer devices firm to really achieve that integration, with its iPod and iTunes. 


These days, gaining the ability to lock consumer into a particular content ecosystem is the reason producing devices matters.